Protestants are not a different "religion" from Catholics

[guanophore]

Both these responses are ridiculous. I phrased my entire response as a contrast between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. It appears that neither of you view Orthodoxy as a viable choice? They have the same apostolic succession as the CC. You think they are wrong?

As for how am I to know? God has written His laws on my heart. I have His Holy Spirit to guide me in making these decisions.

Orthodoxy shares 98% of the faith with us.

The problem with going on your own understanding of the HS is that it all goes through the individual perception. Each person does their best to understand, but that is why we have so many Protestant denominations, all formed because each person is following the HS. Interpretations are as common as the belly button.

Jesus established a Church, and gave them Teaching Authority so that we would not get lost from the Truth. The HS does not guide one individual 2000 years later in a different direction than He has already guided the Apostles and their successors.

 

[qOcOp]

No, this is an inappropriate use of the term. On the contrary, most Protestants who embrace heresies do not qualify, since they don’t know any better.

I stand corrected thank you.

This statement is not consistent with what the Catholic Church believes and teaches. Besides, I would take an on fire Protestant every day of the week over a pew warming cafeteria Catholic.:

Could you be more specefic? Does the Catholic Church not recognize protestant baptisms when done with the correct formula? I too would rather take an on fire Protestant over a cafeteria Cathoilc.

You are suffering a gross mischaracterization about Protestants. Most of them accept the vast majority of Catholic faith. The Catechism affirms that the HS is at work in them to bring them to Himself.

Yes the Holy Spirit is at work in the individuals in order to bring them to the fullness of the Faith; however, the Holy Spirit is not at work in Protestantism! This is why they are dead members of Christs Body (The Church).

On the contrary, it seems that you have judged them, and found them wanting. And you have done so in violation of what the Church teaches.

Please show me where I have judged them. My remarks have been against Protestantism not the character of Protestants themselves.

I agree, but most Protestants have not “created new doctrines that contradict”. They received contradictory doctrines from the Reformers (who do qualify as heretics). They are under the mispprehension that it is Catholics who have created new doctrines that contradict the Bible…

My comment was directed to the Protestant Reformers not present day Protestants. I thought you would have understood that since you were speaking about the intentions of the Reformers.

 

[guanophore]

qOcOp:

In short Protestants are part of the Catholic Church because they have received the sacrament of Baptism; however, because they do not follow the doctrines and teachings of the Church they are considered dead members within Christ’s body.

Could you be more specefic? Does the Catholic Church not recognize protestant baptisms when done with the correct formula?

I was not reacting to the statement about Baptism. Yes, the valid baptism is accepted. I was reacting to the idea that they are “dead members”.

I urge you to read in Acts how Paul responded to Apollos. The Catechism addresses this specifically: "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

It clearly states that the HS works through those ecclesial communites (Protestant churches) to bring souls to unity. Nothing in these passages indicate that the recipients are “dead members”.

Yes the Holy Spirit is at work in the individuals in order to bring them to the fullness of the Faith; however, the Holy Spirit is not at work in Protestantism! This is why they are dead members of Christs Body (The Church).

Life and grace exists in such communities to the extent that they have retained the Apostolic Teachings found in the Catholic faith. Some have retained more than others.

Please show me where I have judged them. My remarks have been against Protestantism not the character of Protestants themselves.

Calling them dead requires that you be able to read their hearts and minds, does it not?

My comment was directed to the Protestant Reformers not present day Protestants. I thought you would have understood that since you were speaking about the intentions of the Reformers.

Ok. Sorry if I misunderstood.

 

[AmateurPianist]

This is why they are dead members of Christs Body (The Church).

It is garbage like this that reminds me why I rarely come this way any more.

I am going to be brutally honest now. These forums make me think less highly of the Catholic faith, not more so. So what actually happens inside of me goes against the purpose of these forums. Which is sad because when it might be just a few zealots that do that. But for the sake of not forming a low opinion of the Catholic faith…so long again.

 

[qOcOp]

It clearly states that the HS works through those ecclesial communites (Protestant churches) to bring souls to unity. Nothing in these passages indicate that the recipients are “dead members”.

Life and grace exists in such communities to the extent that they have retained the Apostolic Teachings found in the Catholic faith. Some have retained more than others.

Yes I agree that the Holy Spirit can and at times does work in the Protestants that reside in these communities, but what I do not agree with is that Protestantism is the work of the Holy Spirit. It is because Protestantism is not the work the Holy Spirit (though some of its precepts have been taken from the Catholic Church which is guided by the Holy Spirit) it cannot add to the Church’s doctrine on Faith and Morals. This is why they are “dead” members of the Church. My use of the term dead was not implying that they are incapable of receiving grace, or gifts from the Holy Spirit. No it is clear that God has allowed Protestantism to remain so that it can be used as a stepping stone to unity with the Church militant or triumphant (that is if provided that the Protestants are indeed faithful and open to His grace and call).

I hope this has made things clearer.

Calling them dead requires that you be able to read their hearts and minds, does it not?

No it doesn’t and hopefully I have explained why in my above comment.

 

[guanophore]

Yes I agree that the Holy Spirit can and at times does work in the Protestants that reside in these communities, but what I do not agree with is that Protestantism is the work of the Holy Spirit.

You are making a straw man. You are not understanding the Catechism. If you read the sections posted, you will not see any claim that Protestantism is a work of the HS.

It is because Protestantism is not the work the Holy Spirit (though some of its precepts have been taken from the Catholic Church which is guided by the Holy Spirit) it cannot add to the Church’s doctrine on Faith and Morals.

This is a false criteria, since Catholics can’t “add” to it either. It is a once for all deposit of faith that was closed at the death of the last Aposlte.

This is why they are “dead” members of the Church. My use of the term dead was not implying that they are incapable of receiving grace, or gifts from the Holy Spirit.

This is an absurd statement. The HS does not give gifts and grace to the dead. If they are capable of receiving, then they are alive.

No it is clear that God has allowed Protestantism to remain so that it can be used as a stepping stone to unity with the Church militant or triumphant (that is if provided that the Protestants are indeed faithful and open to His grace and call).

I hope this has made things clearer.

Not a bit.

No it doesn’t and hopefully I have explained why in my above comment.

No, your explanatiom makes no sense at all.

You have departed from the teaching of the Church.

 

[qOcOp]

If you read the sections posted, you will not see any claim that Protestantism is a work of the HS…

Wow you dont say? Thanks for clarifying something I already know and did NOT accuse the catechism of teaching.

This is a false criteria, since Catholics can’t “add” to it either. It is a once for all deposit of faith that was closed at the death of the last Aposlte. This is an absurd statement. The HS does not give gifts and grace to the dead. If they are capable of receiving, then they are alive…

You completely missed the point, and I suspect you will continue to miss the point.

No, your explanatiom makes no sense at all.

Yes I can clearly see your not getting it.

You have departed from the teaching of the Church.

No rather you think I have because your not understanding what I’m trying to say which is fine. I’m not going to waste my time or yours.

I will end this by asking a rhetorical question. Do the Protestants have the Blessed Sacrament? No! How then can they be alive?

For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’

Protestants are lost and DEAD until they return to their Fathers house,the Catholic Church, were they will be alive again!

 

[StTommyMore]

Are you a Feeneyite?

 

[Le_Cracquere]

So let me see if I can cut to the chase:

As far as the site architects are concerned, Protestants are Muslims are Hindus are Parsees are Wiccans, in terms of relevance for and concern to Catholic Christendom. Am I near it?

 

[guanophore]

Wow you dont say? Thanks for clarifying something I already know and did NOT accuse the catechism of teaching.

No one suggested it but you.

You completely missed the point, and I suspect you will continue to miss the point.

I hope that I will always be missed by points that are in contradiction to the teachings of Holy Mother Church.

Yes I can clearly see your not getting it.

And I can assure you that sarcasm and misinformation are not very effective methods when it comes to helping others to see your point.

No rather you think I have because your not understanding what I’m trying to say which is fine. I’m not going to waste my time or yours.

That is ok, but it would not be appropriate for any committed member of this forum to allow someone who claims to be Catholic post information that is contrary to Catholic faith.

I will end this by asking a rhetorical question. Do the Protestants have the Blessed Sacrament? No! How then can they be alive?

Jesus command to eat His Body, and drink His blood was given to the Apostles, and they passed it on to their successors, the bishops. Protestants do not have Apostolic Succession, and therefore do not recieve His command.

For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’

Protestants were never in the house. They have been brought up in a faith tradition that has been separated from the House for 500 years.

Protestants are lost and DEAD until they return to their Fathers house,the Catholic Church, were they will be alive again!

This statement is contrary to what the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches.

If you employ some common sense, you will realize that one cannot return to a place one has never been.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

Well, I don’t intend to set up strawmen deliberately, and I appreciate the answer! Still, if I were a webmaster it wouldn’t seem “ludicrous,” or be beyond my powers, to draw a provisional three-way distinction between Catholics, Nicene Christians, and other religions.

Of course one can take that down a slippery slope, and there’d be some hard feelings from sects judged not to qualify as Nicene Christianity, but most of the calls aren’t THAT difficult to make, and at worst it seems preferable to lumping the Episcopalians and Thor-worshippers into the same section. Because even if my query unintentionally invoked a “strawman,” it’s hard for a Protestant not to take it that way.

 

[Zooey]

So let me see if I can cut to the chase:

As far as the site architects are concerned, Protestants are Muslims are Hindus are Parsees are Wiccans, in terms of relevance for and concern to Catholic Christendom. Am I near it?

No.
Though its not a bad question…Which our friend Jharek Carnelian has attempted to answer.

Well, I don’t intend to set up strawmen deliberately, and I appreciate the answer! Still, if I were a webmaster it wouldn’t seem “ludicrous,” or be beyond my powers, to draw a provisional three-way distinction between Catholics, Nicene Christians, and other religions.

Of course one can take that down a slippery slope, and there’d be some hard feelings from sects judged not to qualify as Nicene Christianity, but most of the calls aren’t THAT difficult to make, and at worst it seems preferable to lumping the Episcopalians and Thor-worshippers into the same section. Because even if my query unintentionally invoked a “strawman,” it’s hard for a Protestant not to take it that way.

The problem is (& this is where I came in) that we have both Quakers & Mormons, for example, present here. What are they? Fish? Fowl?? Slightly rancid cranberry sauce???
And then of course, I am getting pretty old & cranky for a protest march & a round of Kumbaya…

 

[paxlily]

Wow you dont say? Thanks for clarifying something I already know and did NOT accuse the catechism of teaching.

You completely missed the point, and I suspect you will continue to miss the point.

Yes I can clearly see your not getting it.

No rather you think I have because your not understanding what I’m trying to say which is fine. I’m not going to waste my time or yours.

I will end this by asking a rhetorical question. Do the Protestants have the Blessed Sacrament? No! How then can they be alive?

For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’

Protestants are lost and DEAD until they return to their Fathers house,the Catholic Church, were they will be alive again!

 

[504Katrin]

I’ve read and enjoyed reading all 14 pages, and I must say I’m so glad I was born Catholic.

There’s one thing that I can definately understand about Protestantism which is that they protested against the sale of indulgences. This is what Jesus I think would have probably agreed with as well. You simply just can’t buy your ticket to heaven. That was just wrong back then.

edit: oh and yeah you Protestants are non-catholics of course so the forum title is correct imo. We’re all Christians but you guys ain’t Catholics; if you were you’d live with all of our sacraments and what comes with it

 

[wisdomseeker]

I’ve read and enjoyed reading all 14 pages, and I must say I’m so glad I was born Catholic.

There’s one thing that I can definately understand about Protestantism which is that they protested against the sale of indulgences. This is what Jesus I think would have probably agreed with as well. You simply just can’t buy your ticket to heaven. That was just wrong back then.

edit: oh and yeah you Protestants are non-catholics of course so the forum title is correct imo. We’re all Christians but you guys ain’t Catholics; if you were you’d live with all of our sacraments and what comes with it

I think you need to read what Scott Hahn has to say about indulgences. It is not wrong and martin luther greatly exagerated the issue. I wish people would stop saying that ml was right about the things he accused about the Church. if he was so good he would have stayed in teh Church and done what was right instead of condemning the brothers and try to be so rightous when he wasnt. he did terrible things much worse than indulgences exagerated.

 

[StTommyMore]

I think you need to read what Scott Hahn has to say about indulgences. It is not wrong and martin luther greatly exagerated the issue. I wish people would stop saying that ml was right about the things he accused about the Church. if he was so good he would have stayed in teh Church and done what was right instead of condemning the brothers and try to be so rightous when he wasnt. he did terrible things much worse than indulgences exagerated.

His specific complain, the selling of indulgences, was valid.

 

[rinnie]

The corruption was so rampant and longstanding that the faith was not evident to the people. They did not have their own Catechism or Bible and they believed all the lies that were told to them by the clergy. They left because the faith was not evident to them. When the Bible became available, they could clearly see that what they were being told was not consistent with what was written.

I agree, but if there was not even one clergy person following the faith, you could see how it would scatter the sheep. Many of those Catholics NEVER got the true faith. The clerics were largely uneducated and those that were educated were corrupted by worldly influences.

They did not see a church that was guided by the HS.

I don’t think so. If you read the theses, he was mostly complaining about practices. There were some doctrinal issues, but the majority of his complaints were valid against the corrupted clergy. The biggest problem was his refusal to acknowledge the authority appointed by Christ. He thought his own authority, or what he believed came from Scripture was superior.

Hi Guan, While I appreciate your response and agree with most of it, my problem is with Luther reforming the CC. That is where I take issue.

While I agree that the CC had problems with certain leaders who did not live up to their faith, it has nothing to do with the Teachings of the CC.

Because the way I am seeing it, if Luther reformed the CHURCH then the Church failed. ANd that is impossible.

Because the Church is still led by the Holy Spirit. Jesus promised us that, See what I am saying?

You cannot blame the teaching’s of the CC for the actions of many who sinned. Christ still promised us the Church would prevail, and we don’t need no bible for that. The Church is the Pilar of all truth not the bible for that fact. You can get rid of ever single bible in the world and still no get rid of the Church.

 

[rinnie]

His specific complain, the selling of indulgences, was valid.

I don’t believe that anyone disagrees with this.

But the fact remains that indulgences was and always will be a accepted teaching of the RCC.

We believe that the Church can give Indulgences. Always has always will.

We believe that indulgences are useful for the faithful.

While again Luther may have disagree on the abuse of how some were given, it still never REFORMED the Church. It may have had the Church look into his leaders and their conduct more closely, but has nothing to do with the concept of Indulgences itself.

I actually receive them when I go to the Stations of the Cross. This is an acceptable indulgence and give it up to my Brother and my Dad. Rather they need it or not.

An indulgence is a specal Grace we can receive. Just like praying the rosary can bring us closer to Christ and by being closer to him can obtain special graces from him.

To deny indulgences would be to deny Grace given from God IMO. There are many ways we can receive the Grace from God and this is one of them. It is simply going to Christ spending time with him, and letting him work through you.

But this has nothing to do again with Luther reforming the RCC. He never has nor anyone ever will. The RCC is led by the Holy Spirit.

 

[504Katrin]

**I think you need to read what Scott Hahn has to say about indulgences. ** It is not wrong and martin luther greatly exagerated the issue. I wish people would stop saying that ml was right about the things he accused about the Church. if he was so good he would have stayed in teh Church and done what was right instead of condemning the brothers and try to be so rightous when he wasnt. he did terrible things much worse than indulgences exagerated.

thanks a lot for the feedback. I will

 

[StTommyMore]

I don’t believe that anyone disagrees with this.

But the fact remains that indulgences was and always will be a accepted teaching of the RCC.

We believe that the Church can give Indulgences. Always has always will.

We believe that indulgences are useful for the faithful.

While again Luther may have disagree on the abuse of how some were given, it still never REFORMED the Church. It may have had the Church look into his leaders and their conduct more closely, but has nothing to do with the concept of Indulgences itself.

I actually receive them when I go to the Stations of the Cross. This is an acceptable indulgence and give it up to my Brother and my Dad. Rather they need it or not.

An indulgence is a specal Grace we can receive. Just like praying the rosary can bring us closer to Christ and by being closer to him can obtain special graces from him.

To deny indulgences would be to deny Grace given from God IMO. There are many ways we can receive the Grace from God and this is one of them. It is simply going to Christ spending time with him, and letting him work through you.

But this has nothing to do again with Luther reforming the RCC. He never has nor anyone ever will. The RCC is led by the Holy Spirit.

I am well aware on the validity of indulgences. I also believe that we should not sweep past abuses under the rug, but we need to confront them from time to time